TubeNet

bloke wrote:I've played the rotary version and, although I noticed that it offered very good intonation - particularly for bit-larger-than-4/4 tuba, frankly I was a bit nonplused. Neither the sound nor the response rocked my world.

IS the piston version of the B&S PT-6 CC tuba MUCH BETTER than the rotary version?

IMO, the piston and rotary really are two different horns. Not just the valves but they play different. The sounds out front, to me, are similar, but they go about it in different ways.

The rotary has that rotary valve smoothness to response and dexterity while the piston seems to maybe slot more and sit on the note firmer once established. This is from limited exposure to behind the mouthpiece of them.

When I have played PT-6s I have had your same reaction. "What is the big deal?" They gave me feedback sorta like what I feel like when I try to play a Rudy Meinl. They feel a little awkward and foreign to me. I just feel unsure of what is coming out the bell. Perhaps it is my background on Hirsbrunners and the like.

My "heritage" on tubas is as follows:

Jr high
Conn BAT 3-valve BBb

High school
Miraphone BBb 4u rotary
Miraphone CC 185 5u rotary (5th valve never worked)

Undergrad
B&S PT-4 rotary (older style)
Kalison Daryl Smith CC piston
Hirsbrunner HB-21 CC piston

Grad school
Hirsbrunner HB-21 CC piston

Audition
Hirsbrunner HB-21 CC piston

Job primary horns
Miraphone 4-valve Sousaphone BBb

personal horns
Yorkbrunner CC piston

All of the above are gone now

Currently used horns
Conn 3-valve Sousaphone BBb
Hirsbrunner HB-2p CC piston
Meinl Weston 2000 CC piston
Miraphone 186 5u BBb rotary (only used to memorize marches)

Now with my instrument resume out there, perhaps you can see my bias. The PT-6's feel more like my PT-15 F tuba than any of the other tubas I have used.

Ok, enough with the "How it feels"

The PT-6 is all about the out front experience, at least I hear it that way. The horns are never a handicap and has the efficiency in sound to really carry well. Why? No clue. Ask Mr. P that one. I just know that when I am listening to people out front, my ears gravitate to the sound of the PT-6.

This would be a good horn to test with either someone out front or a tape recording running in an ABC comparison.

To each his own.. I had the opposite response to them. I went to custom and tried all the PT-6 P and PT-6 they had and left VERY HAPPY with a rotary. Maybe its because my first few years playing seriously I had to learn to get around on a rotor because its what the school had for me? I actually had the exact opposite reaction. I played a few PT-6p's and didnt like the clarity or tone at all.

Carol plays a PT-6P, Jeff (anderson) plays a PT-6... IMHO Jeff has the best orchestral sound around. Which just reassures my opinion of my liking the rotary version. Maybe its suggestive reasoning? who knows. I would bet that an equal number of rotary and piston horns come out of that factory. I go back and forth from rotary to piston all the time. To each his own...

"A bit-larger than 4/4"???? No way. This is either a large 5/4 or a small 6/4 depending on interpretation. The sound out front will tell you no different as it holds up in the biggest orchestras.
Also, there are some notable players who won auditions playing the rotary version.
Finally, every horn has lovers and haters. Pick the one you like the best. I will say that, when it comes to the PT6, people tend to STRONGLY prefer either piston or rotars with very few riding the fence. It doesn't make the other "inferior".

My use of the word "inferior" was in context of comparing the two models, not in an overall market with other horns. I think I understood what your point was and any language I used was for comparison between the piston and rotary PT6 models. Also, my list of names was only because you stated than more plaeyrs tend to lean towards the piston. I simply disagree and think it's pretty balanced. However, sometimes proof needs to be stated (i.e. a list of names).

My overall point is that there are fans of both and they hardly ride the fence as far as which one is better. It's going to be hard to get the answer you want. (Unless ONLY piston people answer)

bloke wrote:

David Zerkel wrote:...Since that time, I have owned a Walter Nirschl 5/4 CC and a Rudy Meinl 4345 CC, both horns that I liked, but never really fell in love with.

My current set up is a PT-6P CC and a PT 15 F.

' comments?

Sure, I'll bite.

When I first moved to the PT-6P it was because I was getting ready to re-enter the audition circuit from a 6 year lay off. The consistent comment that I would receive about my playing was that it was "just not enough sound". This was the comment when I played both my Alex and the HB-2P. I figured that if I were going to give this an honest shot, I'd move to bigger equipment.

At the time of my switch, I was playing my Rudy Meinl 4345 (or RMCCC, as the folks at Brasswind were calling it at the time). When I moved to the PT6, my initial reaction was "bigger, but also tubbier". Like switching from a sports car to a '74 Buick. With time, I figured out the sound and the response of the PT6 and eventually it became to react to this horn more easily, as I would with a 4/4 horn. I kind of understand your perspective on the 4/4 comparison, but agree also with James that although this is the way that the horn can feel, it plays much larger.

I have never been able to negotiate a BFT very well, as I feel that , while most of these produce a glorious sound, they are a bit monochromatic for my taste. I attribute this to the fact that I am a mouthpiece neanderthal and that my attention span is way too short (and my checkbook, too light) to try the various mouthpiece permutations to make these horns more colorful.

What I like about my 6 is that I can make produce what I guess I would consider a pretty big sound, but, it is a big sound with definition, which is somewtimes what the other large tubas that I have tried lack. My sound concept for CC tuba is different (definitely not better!) than most players that I have heard winning jobs. It is the way that I play, and (trying not to sound too esoteric here) ultimately, one must be at peace with their voice on the instrument. I think that I am there, and the PT-6P is the horn that has allowed me to arrive at this point.

I am happy playing this horn in any setting. For me, it works well in the quintet, is flexible enough as a solo instrument and powerful enough to lay bricks in a big orchestra.

I hope this helps. I'd be happy to answer any other questions to the best of my ability.

Best,
DZ

David Zerkel wrote: It is the way that I play, and (trying not to sound too esoteric here) ultimately, one must be at peace with their voice on the instrument.

Perhaps a bit esoteric, however I believe you are completely correct. One must hear a sound in their head. Then they must get the tuba to produce it. For me, some tubas make this easier. Some make it more difficult.

Joe,

I don't have enough background with these horns to speak intelligently. I have played one very good one and one not so good one. I will agree with Sean that the piston and rotor horns are two completely different instruments.

Sorry,
DZ

As someone who played a rotary 6 for 12 years and has now owned a piston 6 for 10 months, I'll try throwing out my observations.

Is the piston 6 MUCH BETTER than the rotary 6? Simply put, it's different. I loved the sound of my rotary 6 (purchased in '94), but I needed something with a little more "pop" to the articulation.

Without giving it a second thought, I decided to go with a piston 6 instead of shopping around for anything else. Why? I didn't want to lose what I already had, but none of the rotary PTs would give me the new stuff I needed. I played 12 piston PTs at Custom and came home with a winner.

The "instant" sound is better, plus the slurs are much smoother (I will now perform the Studies in English Folksong for the first time...used to think I just sucked at slurs!).

However, the 6P I bought takes a LOT of air...maybe even more so than a MW Deck Model. That will take a while to get used to!

I'm not an equipment geek by a long shot...just know what I want to sound like and go for whatever seems to work. Feel free to ask me any general questions, and I'll do my best to answer.
[/quote]

both are good

I dont feel I have enough info to base an opinion on clarity on the piston horn. I played them when i bought my rotary, but I think my not liking them is probably due to my being used to all the rotary horns I've played before. One thing I can confirm about the piston version as compared to the rotary is also the scale. My PT-6 is the most in tune horn I've ever played. This was made more apparent when I played the piston, which had some noticeable pitch tendencies.

Again though, I have primarily been a rotary player, so this may all be in my head and habits.

I made an exception for the Gronitz F though, which has the valves you spoke of.

Bloke,

I owned a PT6P for some time and found it to be quite good. I also had the opportunity to play a PT6 while studying with one of my teachers. My only gripe about the rotary version is that the low register for me was a little difficult. I admit that I was very used to playing a smaller, piston horn during the time that I played the rotary version. I think that it was mainly due to my playing and not the horn.

I think the greatest advantage that the piston version had was the ability to slot the notes easily. I did feel that the sound produced was a little bright but with different mouthpieces I was able to produce different sounds.

Overall I think both horns are very good and would not limit a player. It all comes down to personal preference for me.

So I guess to answer your original question, no I do not think that the piston version is that much better than the rotary version.

Henry Gertcher

I play at rotary PT6. I bought it because I wanted a bigger horn than my Miraphone 186. Also, it was cheap (used from Dillon). I have played several other peoples PT6s and PT6Ps and believe mine to be far uglier, but much better playing than theirs. I believe that is because I have a bad case of "the grass in never greener" over there syndrome.

But alas, you don't want to hear me wax poetically about how great I think my horn is. I do want to point out that, like others have said, mouthpieces don't make that much difference on the horn. But the right mouthpiece does seem to counteract the traits that some people have observed as negative on the rotary PT6.

Specifically, A Perantucci PT50+ (The heaveyweight version), does give the horn more "bite." Normally I use a Mike Finn 3 because I prefer the warm and mellow "Alexanderesque" sound for do in and day out.

Since people seem to care, my horns are:

PT6 rotary CC
Meinl Weston 45S (not slp) rotary F
Miraphone compensating euphonium

bloke wrote: You might like to check out the pistons on the Gronitz I just sold to my out-of-town student...It's pretty easy to forget that the valves are even there. "no brag...just fact" - Walter Brennan (portraying Will Sonnett)

Yes, indeed. Those valves are incredible.

I more-or-less agree with "james" about the comparison of the PT-6 to the PT-6p. However, I haven't played very many of the rotary PT-6 model (maybe two or three of them that friends of mine have owned). I once picked a PT-6p for someone else by play testing about 10 of them at custom music. I found them to be fairly inconsistent from horn to horn, however I really liked the one I picked.

If I had to buy one, it would probably be the PT-6p.

I don't know whether or not one is better than the other, but I have played both models and they each seem to have a different blow to me, but that is just me

As far as the piston valves on PT tubas in general; Matt Walters did a fix on my valves where he filed out the channels a bit, he said that it seems to be a normal fix with these valves. I'm sure he could comment on the fix, suffice it to say, I have to remind myself to oil the valves since Matt has done the work, as they never seem to need it.
Peace.
ASG